Oh...My...God! That was the...WORST, James Bond Film! Chicken Little was right! The...Sky, will...Fall! SKYFAIL is more like it! This is a film about someone trying to...Dial...M, for...Murder! Terrible villain, Terrible concept, and WTF Naomie Harris is Eve M.........!?!

Oh...My...God! That was the...WORST, James Bond Film! Chicken Little was right! The...Sky, will...Fall! SKYFAIL is more like it! This is a film about someone trying to...Dial...M, for...Murder! Terrible villain, Terrible concept, and WTF Naomie Harris is Eve M.........!?!

Oh...My...God! That was the...WORST, James Bond Film! Chicken Little was right! The...Sky, will...Fall! SKYFAIL is more like it! This is a film about someone trying to...Dial...M, for...Murder! Terrible villain, Terrible concept, and WTF Naomie Harris is Eve M.........!?!

ABrilliant. One of my top three favorite Bond films, for sure (I need time for reflection, and to see it again, before I can determin my new Bond rankings). And for my money, Craig cemented his status as the best Bond we've yet had. "Waste of a good whiskey.."

If I had one loud complaint, it would be about the fourth wall breaking red ejector seat button. Infuriated me to no end.

I will write (much, much) more later, but for now I just want to say this movie was worth the wait, and was a joy to behold.

Fiennes as M is my dream come true as well, so the ending itself was everything I could have hoped for.

Whishaw as Q has room for improvement, that's all I will say on that note. Honestly he looks too young, too green, to have the job he has. It beggared believability.

Mike's Pants, Hopefully future Bond films will be better. Bond is basically...M's...Bodyguard through the 2nd half of the film. Silva is...Nothing like an old school Bond Villain. His plan is to kill...M! Bond doesn't have to save the world from S.P.E.C.T.R.E, or Fort Knox's Gold, he just has to save his supervisor. Thankfully, The Bond Series is...Moore than this...Dud.

AJust a few little bits, because I will need more time to collate my thoughts for a longer review, but I loved the references to Bond's pill use, and I LOVED to see Severin smoking cigarettes. Christ, how long has it been in a Bond film since we've seen a woman enjoy a smoke? Even Xenia in Goldeneye smoked Cigarellos. Bernice was beautiful and heartbreaking and awesome. I was blown away by the quiet power of her performance. Love that she got hot for Bond after watching him drop someone out of a skyscraper! (and I loved that Bond tried and failed to hold the hit man up - very Flemming).

Loved Kleinman's titles. They are close to his best yet. Loved how it was pure fantasy, seamlessly merging real world with Bond's decent into darkness represented by a yawning, impossible sinkhole at the bottom of the river. Note perfect.

A[quote name="duke fleed" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/150#post_3419344"]Mike's Pants, Hopefully future Bond films will be better. Bond is basically...M's...Bodyguard through the 2nd half of the film. Silva is...Nothing like an old school Bond Villain. His plan is to kill...M! Bond doesn't have to save the world from S.P.E.C.T.R.E, or Fort Knox's Gold, he just has to save his supervisor. Thankfully, The Bond Series is...Moore than this...Dud.
[/quote]

But Duke, isn't M the most important relationship in Bond's life? He's given up the chance of a normal life to be n the service, and within that world there is no one to whom he has a closer (forgive me) .... Bond.

In that sense the stakes in this film were uniquely high for the Bond series.

Why did Silva need to be captured? Why couldn't he have just smuggled himself into London, changed into a police outfit, and ambushed the inquiry? Seems like he chose a really roundabout way to go about achieving his primary objective, and exposed himself to risks he needn't have done. The better Bond villains didn't do that, a flaw magnified by the fact that he is set up as some kind of technology-manipulating omniscient.

[/quote]

I felt like Silva wanted to show how clever he was, wanted to show M how stupid she'd been to give him away. I felt like he'd spent years in captivity planning his revenge, wanting it to be as perfect and humiliating for MI6 as possible.

In the film I never once questioned his plan, and as to the risks of failure? It was clear that the plan was the only thing keeping Silva going. It was what his life was about. He wouldn't want to cheat and do things the easy way. He appreciated the risk and the challenge, and wouldn't have had it any other way. He liked being up against the likes of Bond - it was flattering to his ego.

Dr Harford, Bond could have retired after his disappearing after being shot. He didn't. Bond is there to do things that ordinary agents, police etc cannot do. Bond didn't get to 23 official films by just protecting his boss. There are few Gadgets, they actually make fun of things like Exploding pens, Craig is not only uncomfortable in delivering puns, he is awful at it as well. Timothy Dalton was serious, but no where near as Dour as Craig. Bond has a relationship with M, but it doesn't have to be the main cog in the villains plan. There should have been a bigger reason to eliminate M.

A[quote name="chrknudsen" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/100#post_3417071"]But he gets his 00-status in Casino Royale. So he's a veteran of British Intelligence but still a slightly novice 00? What does the 00-status even mean? Is it like a promotion from standard agent to something like a Black Ops agent?
[/quote]

00 means you illegally kill people in other countries, at the behest of the British government. One could be a solder or a spy, and still not be in a job where you're undercover at a cricket game, and then drown a Pakistani national in a bathroom sink (as happens in the opening of Casino Royale).

For Bond of the novels, he spent most of the war as a regular spy, but then became a 00 after performing two kills: one a Japanese American spy in the RCA building in New York City. A killing that was beyond the scope of normal espionage or the rules of war.

AGOLDENEYE asked if James Bond was relevant for the 1990s post-Cold War era, SKYFALL asks if James Bond is relevant for the 21st century. Both answer a resounding "FUCK YES!", but SKYFALL does it five times better.

I'm really glad to see people appearing here who enjoyed the movie as much as I did. I've seen Skyfall twice already and can't wait to own it on Blu-ray. It sits quite comfortably behind The Avengers as one of my favorite movies of the year, despite its flaws.

I absolutely loved this film. The opening action scene was incredible, and the title sequence gave me the fucking chills. They brought back the Bond tropes without losing anything they gained. I could watch Bardem as Silva for days. Craig delivered as usual, Dench, Fiennes, Whitshaw... all the cast was excellent. I'm struggling to come up with anything I didn't like. I don't see how anyone could say this doesn't belong in the same class as FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE or GOLDFINGER. The only question in my mind at this point is is it better than CASINO ROYALE. I think it might be.

But I'm sure someone will pop in and say it's not better than FOR YOUR EYES ONLY or some shit. Crazy talk.

AIt's definitely better than CASINO ROYALE. For one, this Bond is much better written for Craig. He always seemed wrong for the Bond written in CR because it's odd to see a 38 year old man play a role that was meant to be a Bond in his 20s that's arrogant and new at the game still "learning his lesson", no matter how good Craig played it. It actually seems more natural and appropriate that Bond in this film played by Craig is now written as a professional 00 veteran and with that being a better match, Craig undoubtedly gives his best 007 performance by far.

This is my 007 ranking before SF:

Connery
Dalton
Craig
Moore
Brosnan
Lazenby

After SF

Connery
Craig
Dalton
Moore
Brosnan
Lazenby

Hate to have Dalton bumped down, but he only had two shots and unfortunately never made his third. Craig came close with his first two, but with SF he's pretty much solidified his place in the 007 legacy for me.

Jesus Christ, this movie. It's the Wrath of Khan, the Dark Knight... and not without compromising its wit.

Let me preface by saying this: I think Casino Royale is great until the disorienting mess of a third act, and overall it's overrated as far as its praise. Quantum of Solace is a good idea marred by terrible execution. All that said, Daniel Craig's dark, calculating take on James Bond got lost in the filmmakers' efforts to cash in on the Bourne films and play him as a Jack Bauer-esque superagent. After six years and three films, however, Craig has finally found an entry in his stint as James Bond that matches the caliber of his interpretation of the character, which may be the most scowling and insubordinate since Timothy Dalton's second and final outing (and a personal all-timer), Licence to Kill.

From Roger Deakins' Oscar-worthy cinematography to the overarching themes of trust and duplicity, Sam Mendes has delivered a masterwork of a film that, as you may have heard from critics, just might be the best Bond movie yet. Mendes has yielded a superb experience for the series unlike anything seen before. Shaky cam is traded for Deakins' contemplative shot composition and a steely, overcast aesthetic reminiscent of Christopher Nolan and Michael Mann, which matches the world of hurt that a presumed-dead Bond has come to experience. Like Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, the villains of the world are not interested in world domination or sophisticated gadgets. Terrorism and anarchy are the new normal, a harsh reality that keeps Bond running on empty and reveals a deep-cut complexity in his relationship with M (Judi Dench, never better in the role). Ben Whishaw, heartbreaking in Cloud Atlas, reinvents Q as a quiet but smart-witted techie rather than the glorified Grandpa MacGyver Desmond Llewelyn had become by the end of his run. Ralph Fiennes' higher-up bureaucrat Gareth Mallory provides true class and order to the despair, while Naomie Harris is a slinky counterpart to Bond as Eve and Bérénice Marlohe has skyrocketed to my ranks of massive crushes.

Where the film fully ascends to brilliance, however, is the ingenious (and, if we wish upon a soaring, glittery star in the sky, Oscar-nominated) performance by Javier Bardem as Raoul Silva, certainly the best Bond villain they've had in half a century. Silva is a flamboyantly gay sociopath whose contempt for establishment is even more destructive than Bond's, a despicable and psychologically abusive anarchist who sees comedy in tragedy and is human only by nature. Imagine if Heath Ledger had borrowed more tricks from Cesar Romero's Joker in The Dark Knight, throw in overtones of Hannibal Lecter and Francis Dolarhyde, and finish it off with the manic, closeted homosexuality of Paul Lynde, and Bardem has succeeded in creating a villain that stands alone from the franchise as monumental. Let's just say Anton Chigurh would have been the bottom of a train sandwich if Silva got his hands on him.

Following the intensity of this year's elections and the "divided we stand" statements, it's easy to see that Skyfall hasn't arrived at a better time. Change is afoot in the James Bond universe, some we can see and don't want to, but some that are clear-cut to be eventual. By the time the film ends, however, a return to normalcy has solidified before us. James Bond will return, and I'll sure as hell be waiting to see how they top this one.

A[quote name="Mr. Stockslivevan" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/150#post_3419545"]GOLDENEYE asked if James Bond was relevant for the 1990s post-Cold War era, SKYFALL asks if James Bond is relevant for the 21st century. Both answer a resounding "FUCK YES!", but SKYFALL does it five times better.
That's all I'm gonna say about SF for now.[/quote]

Putting aside quality comparison - although to give the lie to that I thought there wasn't much of a gulf in class between the two films - the world M describes in the inquiry as being the new espionage paradigm is basically no different to the premise in Goldeneye. No more state on state spying but borderless, shadowy threats. Which is one of my issues with Skyfall. I felt like we'd seen all these themes before. The difference was the pretty packaging and more overt psychology.

Mileage on this film seems to vary considerably, at least from my anecdotal experience. Reactions I've heard are incredibly divisive. Some seem to align with the idea this is a first class Bond. Others, like me even on second viewing in IMAX, are very disappointed. Not much middle ground.

I'm also done with Craig as Bond. His first efforts in Casino Royale were transcendent. But his style in the films since is developing into a cliche of a scowling, damaged sourpuss, that's becoming as rote as the effete playboy tropes Moore was wheeling out in the early 80s. We make like our heroes conflicted and morose these days, but I am definitely ready for a more charming interpretation.

A[quote name="Sebastian OB" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/150#post_3419551"]I absolutely loved this film. The opening action scene was incredible, and the title sequence gave me the fucking chills. They brought back the Bond tropes without losing anything they gained. I could watch Bardem as Silva for days. Craig delivered as usual, Dench, Fiennes, Whitshaw... all the cast was excellent. I'm struggling to come up with anything I didn't like. I don't see how anyone could say this doesn't belong in the same class as FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE or GOLDFINGER. The only question in my mind at this point is is it better than CASINO ROYALE. I think it might be.

But I'm sure someone will pop in and say it's not better than FOR YOUR EYES ONLY or some shit. Crazy talk.
[/quote]

Much better than FYEO. No annoying teenage stunt casting for a start. Although, Bibi aside, the gap ain't that huge.

GOLDENEYE asked if James Bond was relevant for the 1990s post-Cold War era, SKYFALL asks if James Bond is relevant for the 21st century. Both answer a resounding "FUCK YES!", but SKYFALL does it five times better.
That's all I'm gonna say about SF for now.

Pretty much my feelings after witnessing this film in IMAX this evening.

For me, there's no question that Skyfall and the Dark Knight Rises sit side by side for blockbuster of the year. Because both are deeply invested in character, they're just a much more satisfying cinematic experience than the rest we've had this year.

Can we just finally say what everyone's been thinking for a while now, in that Craig's the best Bond to grace the screen? No disrespect to Connery but Craig's got him in spades.

I have very mixed feelings... it is definitely a good film, but it feels strange to me: A bit too small, a bit too arbitrary. Like dream sequences cut together, you try to connect them but it feels off… sorry, can’t explain it better

The good stuff:

-Actors. All of them were great and well cast.

-Deakins/ the Alexa: All the nighttime shots, especially the ones that aren’t lit (cityscapes) look brilliant. Just one exception (see below)

-music: nice use of elements of the Bond theme throughout the film. nice subtle stuff (i.e. in the chapel)

-Silva’s creepy "medical revelation" in his glass cell - the only surprising thing in the second act.

-they used Bond’s past subtly. imagine how this would have played out with Purvis/Wade/Brosnan. shudder.

-the last act is brilliant.

-I will see Naomie Harris in Bond 24, which is a good thing.

definitely not good:

-Severines death followed by the cavallerie arriving in choppers is Brosnan era bullshit. This makes Bond look like he doesn’t care one bit about her. I know that what I just wrote is *technically* wrong – but it feels like this to me, because the film is wasting her randomly. The film doesn’t care, so it seems like Bond doesn’t too. What, for example, if Bond got Silva pinned down in the fight, the choppers arrive, it looks like Bond has won and then Silva shoots her? Big difference to me.

- Bond follows a contract killer to a job in Shanghai. The killer does his thing, Bond lets him shoot the target just to question him right after the shooting about another of the killer’s jobs three months ago in Istanbul. And this whole art-buying-thing in the apartment with Severine was about what exactly? It was set up like “just another job” for this killer. It is a mere coincidence that this Shanghai-job is connected to Silva via Severine. Lazy stuff.

-why does this 200m movie have a blatantly shitty digital looking shot and it is Judy Dench’s last one in the film/ series?

the “I don’t know”:

-The scene with Silva in the glass cell. How many serial-killer-b-movies had that kind of scene? Every one. How do they end? all the same: guy does creepy stuff, then escapes two scenes later. You can say that about many scenes in a Bond film, i know. But it feels like it parodies other genres now.

Actually the whole

- middle part with Silva’s escape/ M’s hearing felt like something from a lesser movie. Maybe that’s just me because I have seen too many similar “oh, he planned it all along”-sequences. I mean was anyone of you guys surprised by any of this? Did the film try to milk these moments and failed?

Also M’s speech/poem were heavy-handed and just sounded pretentious.

-The Aston Martin: I’m on the fence here, it was used for two great gags, but somehow the continuity of Craig winning a similar car in CR but then having the Goldfinger version in this film annoyed me. I know. Nitpicking.

- a friend was annoyed by the title sequence “telling the story” too much – for her all the gravestones were a hint that someone would die. Surely not Bond, so she was sure M would die. I don’t see this as a problem, but I noticed too that the sequence was entirely comprised out of stylized versions of scenes that had happened or would happen later, including a stylized image of Silva. Looked like something out of a Mission Impossible film.

I start to get the complaints about Bond becoming kind of “random” – maybe that’s because this film has so many great elements that the flaws stand out in contrast. Connections to Bourne this time: The sequence where Bond cavorts in (?) after he is shot reminded me of the beginning of The Bourne Supremacy. And this film has Albert Finney.

This was a good action thriller. But was it a great Bond film?

I miss the Nelson DeMille-like humour from CR and QOS where Bond is a smartass (or in the scenes with Vesper tries to be one). I suppose that came from Haggis.

Putting aside quality comparison - although to give the lie to that I thought there wasn't much of a gulf in class between the two films - the world M describes in the inquiry as being the new espionage paradigm is basically no different to the premise in Goldeneye. No more state on state spying but borderless, shadowy threats. Which is one of my issues with Skyfall. I felt like we'd seen all these themes before.

I've got to disagree with this. Goldeneye was very much about the unexploded bombs of the 20th century (to borrow a phrase from Warren Ellis), Soviet and American super-weapons falling into the hands of non-state affiliated enemies (and it's been a while since I've seen Goldeneye, but I vaguely remember it opening with M telling Bond that she thought he was a dinosaur and his form of espionage was no longer necessary). Skyfall is very much about 21st Century cyber-terrorism and the requirement for more complex intelligence networks to effectively combat it.

Don Swoosh, Craig the...Best Bond? Not to me. After this...Terrible film, I am not sure he is even better than...Brosnan! I rank Skyfall...24th! The...Worst Bond Film! Silva is an...Awful, villain! I definitely will not be seeing this ever again. Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Sean Connery remain my top 3 Bonds. Brosnan might even be...4th. Lazenby is still the...Worst Bond but not by much.

I've got to disagree with this. Goldeneye was very much about the unexploded bombs of the 20th century (to borrow a phrase from Warren Ellis), Soviet and American super-weapons falling into the hands of non-state affiliated enemies (and it's been a while since I've seen Goldeneye, but I vaguely remember it opening with M telling Bond that she thought he was a dinosaur and his form of espionage was no longer necessary). Skyfall is very much about 21st Century cyber-terrorism and the requirement for more complex intelligence networks to effectively combat it.

Edit: i mean there might be different reasons for questioning the need for field agents/ "blunt instruments" - but the questioning itself is not different. And it serves the same prupose in both films: Creating artificial tension on Bond/ M when there are bigger dangers in both films.